Your complimentary articles

You’ve read all of your two complimentary articles for this month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

If you are a subscriber please sign in to your account.

To buy or renew a subscription please visit Subscriptions.

If you are a print subscriber you can contact us to create an online account.

You can register for a free account to have four complimentary articles per month. We will occasionally email you a newsletter, from which you can unsubscribe at any time. We do not sell personal data or otherwise disclose personal information to other organisations.

Question of the Month

What’s A Good 1000-Year Plan?

Each answer below receives a random book. Apologies to the entrants not included.

A good thousand-year plan is one that is initiated in the correct environment, has vision, and has continuous management so we can build a brighter future.

In today’s short-term world we are lucky to get a thousand day plan from our governments, so for inspiration as to a good thousand-year plan maybe we should look to history or literature. In terms of history. the first ‘thousand-year plan’ that comes to mind is Hitler’s thousand-year Reich. This was not a good plan. Fortunately it only lasted twelve years, but it still caused the largest amount of death and destruction in history. Looking at literature, let’s consider the Seldon plan from Asimov’s Foundation series. In the novels Hari Seldon develops ‘psychohistory’, on the assumption that the gargantuan population of the Galactic Empire allows him to predict future developments using probability theory. It works for a couple of hundred years, but when an event happens that has never happened before – what probability theory calls a ‘black swan event’ – the Seldon plan unravels. Perhaps Bayesian probability theory – the updating of what is thought probable when new information is revealed – should be used to continuously update any thousand-year plan to keep it on track.

Despite the challenges, history can provide examples of successful step changes in human development, including the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. So let’s say, to start a successful thousand-year plan we need to create the environment where a new Renaissance or Enlightenment can occur. The Enlightenment for instance happened in Northern European states where relatively tight Catholic intellectual control had been overturned by the Reformation. But there are still forces that want to hold back intellectual progress. So we need a cultural environment where the general population does not fear change so that new technologies and ideas can grow unfettered. Having created the right environment for intellectual flourishing, the plan will require ambitious targets. These include nuclear fusion, which will provide humanity with cheap unlimited power, and artificial intelligence driven by quantum computing, which will aid humanity in the development of secure food supplies, cradle-to-grave healthcare, and education for all. Once this plan is underway, continual Bayesian probability analysis will be required to ensure the plan deals with unexpected events and stays on track.

Philip Brown, Bury St Edmunds

Modelling the development of human civilisation over such a long timespan is extremely unreliable. Because of this unpredictability, a step-by-step plan is practically impossible.

Since detailed planning is impossible, any thousand-year plan must be based on enduring ideas and values rather than specific policies or institutions. Over the course of a millennium, many of today’s institutions, political systems and social structures will likely disappear, or transform beyond recognition. Ideas and values, however, are able to provide direction across generations, despite changes. So rather than pursuing narrow political goals, we should strive to create conditions that enable every person to live a meaningful, fulfilling and excellent life. Therefore, Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia, or human flourishing, should be humanity’s primary goal through 3026 and beyond. To achieve this, certain core values could guide human progress across the next centuries, including love, knowledge, freedom and justice – values widely accepted as important moral ideals. While the actions taken to express these values will change over time, the values themselves can provide a stable, but adaptive, moral compass in a constantly changing future. Ultimately, the most realistic and useful 1000-year plan is therefore not a plan at all, but a shared moral direction guided by enduring values and aimed at achieving human flourishing for all.

Grete Raaymann, Düsseldorf

A truly philosophical millennium plan is not a blueprint for building monuments or systems, but a quiet, deliberate strategy for becoming worth remembering, while fully accepting that we, as individuals, might not be. Collectively, it’s a different matter.

In the first phase of the thousand years, the task is deceptively simple: do less harm. Rather than shouting our values into the void, we should begin to practise intergenerational justice for those not yet here by refusing to further damage the world. Harm is still harm, whether it happens today or ten centuries from now. The future is not an abstraction; it is a delayed consequence. This requires a shift in moral imagination. To live by this principle is to take responsibility seriously. It means acknowledging wrongdoing, repairing what we can, and resisting the urge to make reckless, irreversible decisions. Whether confronting climate change or the dream of radically extending human life, we are called to adopt a version of the Hippocratic ethic: first, do no harm; second, heal thyself. Restraint becomes a form of wisdom.

At the same time, we must create. Like the fragments left behind by past civilisations – artworks, tools, inscriptions – we should produce work so strangely specific, so distinctly human, that future archaeologists are left uncertain whether we were brilliant or absurd. In that ambiguity lies our signature. It is not perfection that endures, but curiosity. Beyond preservation and creation, our plan extends into something more abstract: we act as the universe’s conscious witness. Our role is to continue asking Leibniz’s question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ – not necessarily to answer it, but to keep the question alive. In doing so, we resist intellectual complacency.

By the end of the millennium, our descendents will not measure our success by dominance or technological triumph, but by transformation. Ideally, we will have replaced our society with something gentler, more patient, more thoughtful. Not perfect, but improved in its capacity for care. If those living in the year 3026 look back at us at all, let them see a people both primitive and sincere: poets, engineers, and philosophers, who, against the odds, managed not to destroy the fragile world beneath their feet.

Claire Keogh, Dublin

On the face of it, this is an unanswerable question. In a world where the most powerful man can change his mind, and therefore the lives of all of us, from hour to hour, who can possibly think to plan for a thousand years? Yet we feeble humans have nevertheless created much that endures. So what might we plan, conscious of the many generations to come that must build on our foundations?

First, and most vital, we must stop polluting our planet, and find ways of reversing the worst of the damage we have caused. Developing cleaner technologies and energy sources also links to the second necessity: finding a fairer way of sharing our planet’s limited resources. That will require forms of international agreement and governance along the lines of a greatly more efficient, respected, and empowered equivalent to the United Nations, to which all nations must subscribe. Capitalism, Communism, and other economic systems have contributed to both great advances and great failures. We must find ways to synthesise the best of each way of thinking in order to make our small and crowded planet a sustainable and fairer place. This will enable us to progress towards the third priority, which is eliminating absolute poverty. And our fourth priority should be the universal availability of education to all young people everywhere, irrespective of sex, religion, ethnicity, parental status, etc; including training in awareness of the world’s problems and the ongoing efforts to solve them, and what or how each person might contribute.

So four major campaigns: preventing/reversing pollution and climate change; enabling fair sharing of the earth’s resources; global governance to counter exploitation; and universal access to good education, including in social responsibility. These developments will take time, require massive resources, and demand sustained effort. To echo John F. Kennedy’s inspirational words: this will not be achieved in the first ten years ; maybe not in the first hundred years; but let us begin! – and together work towards these goals for all mankind, indeed for all life on our planet.

David Morris, Oxford

A good thousand-year plan begins with a modest assumption: we are terrible at prediction, but good at leaving traces. The Stoics knew this, the Buddhists smiled at it, and the British built an entire empire on the principle of ‘this will probably sort itself out’. (Sometimes it even did.) So the aim of a thousand-year civilisation should not be perfection. Perfection is what collapses dramatically in documentaries. Resilience is far more durable. A cathedral survives because generations keep repairing it; a garden survives because nobody expects the roses to obey management consultants.

So my proposal is this: humanity should create a distributed ‘Inheritance Network’. Every century, each community must leave behind three things for the next one: a seed bank, a library, and a joke archive. The seed bank preserves survival, the library preserves memory, and the jokes preserve sanity. (Historians underestimate how much civilization depends on people remaining amused.)

The philosophical foundation for this is simple. Aristotle argued that flourishing comes from cultivating virtues over time, while Hannah Arendt warned that civilisation decays when people stop participating in public life. Meanwhile, British history demonstrates that tea and mild sarcasm can sustain social order through astonishing levels of administrative failure.

A thousand-year plan should therefore optimise for continuity rather than conquest. Plant forests whose shade you will never sit under. Build institutions that expect corruption and survive it anyway. Design cities where children can safely walk to a bakery to get a cake, and old people can argue about weather patterns with professional dedication. Most importantly, preserve the ability to change your mind. Dogmatic civilisations become ruins with excellent symmetry.

Finally, a practical recommendation: every parliament on Earth should be required to maintain at least one official court jester. Democracies already contain clowns. This innovation is simply to make one of them qualified.

Wolfgang Steih, Usingen, Germany

Though a small blip on the timeline of eternity, one thousand years is a long time for human beings. Considering the exponential rate of growth in scientific knowledge, the developments over the next few centuries are utterly unpredictable. Any thinking for this time frame could at best be a good guess rather than a workable plan. And a plan for achieving what? Do we even have a clearly defined goal? Is it feasible or even desirable to direct and control the flow of scientific research? Would the humans be able to control their greed and envy? Such difficulties make defining any firm long-term plan well nigh impossible. However, setting up a broad direction in which such a plan should lead is worth laying down. Possibly this plan should strive to:

* Eliminate suffering for all sentient beings.

* Eliminate the possibility of any existential threat, such as collision with a meteor, the sun cooling down, or an alien attack using techniques of destruction not known to earthlings.

* Effectively prevent any annihilation of all ‘living beings’ (as understood today) by AI driven entities.

The elimination of physical suffering is perhaps not so far away. Advances in bionics and genetics should be able to provide a painless body soon. Such advancement would also contribute to economic well-being. Maybe someone could even live without needing a body – a formless existence. But what about emotional pain? Is it even worth living without emotions? And would the boundary between man and machine not get entirely blurred without emotions?

Chances are that advanced space travel and bodiless existence will provide earthlings with enough prowess to successfully obliterate threats due to celestial imbalances, aliens or an event like the earth melting away. This brings us to the technological singularity, when the growth of artificial intelligence means computers become cleverer than humans; humans might then be considered a drag upon the system.

The initial sparks of such a development are already visible. Tighter regulations and restrictions on research and development must monitor and control such developments. But is there anything wrong about the world being controlled by artificial intelligence? If so, why not leave it to the actions of nature and humanity?

Anil Kulshrestha, Uttar Pradesh, India

The allure of a thousand-year plan is not new. The Romans believed their empire would last forever, going as far as dubbing their capital Roma Aeterna (eternal Rome). Although Rome stands today, nearly 3000 years after its foundation, the beliefs of the former empire have long since been trodden into dust.

Another argument against attempting a thousand-year plan is the changes of morality that occur throughout history. For instance, only in the last century or so did women gain access to voting rights. Here there were even claims that the mental strain of political thinking for women would lead to infertility. But the point is, the moral failings of the past can largely be credited to cultural differences between then and now. So why believe that our good morals of today will not be renounced even in the next century?

It’s bad to want to impose our morals, ideas, ideals, and beliefs onto future generations. who may or may not agree with them. From this we can conclude that only plans with loosely-held obligations, and only widely interpretable suggestions, can work.

So what’s a good thousand-year plan? We don’t believe there is one. They’re futile by nature. The point of these digressions was to exemplify that plans and ideals are not built to outlast the winds of time. Perhaps the best plan one can have is to leave the world better than one found it, and to allow future generations to do the same, as they see fit. But we do owe it to the future civilizations and inhabitants of our planet to try to restore and preserve their home. So plans to maintain and to carefully remove anything that will cause harm to the ecosphere should be implemented.

Joseph Bloomer & Charlotte Wren, Glasgow

There is probably little more futile than drawing up a thousand-year plan unless you’re deeply caught up in some kind of monist future-world scenario whereby you are convinced that humanity has but a single purpose or goal that once achieved will lead to a perfect state. But the average Utopia is static; for how can you improve on perfection once achieved? The communist workers’ paradise, or the Hitlerian thousand-year Reich, have both been end-games, for once achieved there would be nowhere else to go. Any thousand-year plan drawn up under such pre-conditions will mirror the orthodoxy that the planners sought to impose on humanity, and be perfectly useless.

Imagine a grand committee of the great and the good sitting down in 1926 and drawing up a plan for the next hundred years: would that have been worth the paper it was written on? Unlikely, except as a warning against hubris and forgetting to allow for progress, failures, wars, environmental changes, and shifting geo-political realities. It would at best have a quaint historical value – like one of H.G. Wells’ forays into futurology. Now go right back to 1026, assemble your experts and ask them to make a plan for the next thousand years… The future, rather like the past, is a foreign country, and they will definitely do things differently there. Chance and contingency wreak havoc on even the best laid plans, which undoubtedly “gang aft agley”, as Robert Burns would have it.

There’s a second objection as well: Creators of a thousand-year plan, however well intentioned they may be, are seeking to bind future generations to their plan, and so preclude them from making their own decisions and deliberations. A thousand years is 40 or more generations, which is a long way for the dead hand of the past to stretch. In the UK, as elsewhere, there is a long-standing convention that Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments, and this is as it should be. A generation now should not seek to bind future generations either. So a good thousand-year plan would be to abjure any thought of drawing up any such thing as a thousand-year plan.

Steve Foulger, Faversham

In an interview for Le Figaro, Marie Perret, Head of the French Association of Philosophy Teachers, expressed how incensed she was by the downgrading of the discipline to what she described as a ‘derisory’ place in the school curriculum. Philosophy, she argued, should be valued and promoted because “it is a discipline which demands that you listen to your own thoughts and that you are able to get angry with yourself.” Further, “it leads pupils not to confuse the truth with spontaneous opinion and to construct critical judgement.” Plato famously makes Socrates say that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’. Contrariwise, Isaiah Berlin cautioned that if all members of a society were sceptical intellectuals, constantly examining the presuppositions of their beliefs, ‘nobody would be able to act at all’. True as this may be, the invention of the internet, the fact that most people obtain their news from social media, the permeation of AI into so many aspects of our lives, pose problems heretofore unimagined. My plan, therefore, is to have philosophy (defined as deep rational enquiry and reflection) placed at the heart of all teaching and learning.

Helmuth von Moltke noted that “no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.” In the same vein, as we race headlong into an unknowable future, it is difficult to devise any plan that can survive for long with much relevance. Nor would anyone expect philosophy to provide a blueprint for living. What I would argue though, is that the study of philosophy can provide the intellectual skills necessary to interrogate and evaluate the manner and content of our discourse with one another in a rational and confident manner, as independent thinkers – fundamental skills both immediately applicable and of enduring relevance, for a thousand years, and well beyond.

David Cope, Telford

Next Question of the Month

The next question is: Is The Mind The Brain? If Not, What Is It? Please give and justify your answer in less than 400 words. The prize is a semi-random book from our book mountain. Email the Editor. Subject lines should be marked ‘Question of the Month’, and must be received by 19th October 2026. If you want a chance of getting a book, please include your physical address.